https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jun 26 15:12:15 2019
New Revision: 272697
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272697=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90634 reduce allocations in filesystem::path construction
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #15 from baltic <1000hz.radiowave at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> It's true that the standard does not require path::iterator to be usable in
> generic algorithms that expect forward iterators
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 28 20:48:31 2019
New Revision: 271719
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271719=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90634 reduce allocations in filesystem::path construction
Backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 28 19:39:48 2019
New Revision: 271717
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271717=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90634 reduce allocations in filesystem::path construction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 28 16:08:51 2019
New Revision: 271712
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271712=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix check for root-directory path and add tests
PR libstdc++/90634
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue May 28 14:57:35 2019
New Revision: 271710
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271710=gcc=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/90634 reduce allocations in filesystem::path construction
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #9 from baltic <1000hz.radiowave at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> The libc++ implementation also fails this test:
As i've shown before, neither of those are failures. By the current C++
standard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I'm well aware what the standard says, I reported
https://wg21.link/lwg2674
I consider it a mistake for the standard to say "these are bidirectional
iterators, except they're not, but it's OK because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #7 from baltic <1000hz.radiowave at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> So don't store them as filesystem::path objects then, store them as strings
> and create a path as needed.
Type system is here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |8.4
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to baltic from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
>
> > I'm not sure where the repeated 72 allocations come from, and can't check
> > the code right now, but the new
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #4 from baltic <1000hz.radiowave at gmail dot com> ---
besides the 269 bytes you have mentioned, is still x10 overhead for a 20 chars
string. and massively adds up, if you store a lot objects.
for example, when i go around home folder
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
baltic <1000hz.radiowave at gmail dot com> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90634
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The path type was rewritten for GCC 9, and now prints:
allocating 21 bytes
allocating 248 bytes
about to quit.
total allocated 269 bytes
freed 248 bytes
freed 21 bytes
The 21 bytes is for the native()
16 matches
Mail list logo
